Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration, the worst hive of scum and villany


Uncivil attack essay. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep. Yeah, I suppose your description of the essay is correct, DavidLeighEllis. But it resides in a pretty obscure corner of Wikipedia. Provided Hasteur is willing to remove the only personalized section, "non-party actions", which I think pretty battleground-y (especially since it actually links to an ongoing case), I don't think the page needs to be deleted. We should give people some leeway, within reason, for letting off steam in their own userspace. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC).
 * I disagree, Bish; I don't see anything particularly uncivil or otherwise problematic even in that section. The essay is a bit hyperbolic, in my opinion, but so are a lot of things; I don't see any real ground for deletion. Strong keep. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * This essay is already under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed_decision. Is it your intention to raise the same issue in multiple locations at the same time in a manner that is similar to forum shopping/harassment?
 * This essay was not linked from any page prior to the above discussion, so I would like to understand how the nominator stumbled upon the essay.
 * This essay is a personal venting of frustration at how ArbCom cases have been conducted recently. Please explain how expressing one's viewpoint is uncivil.  Please explan how expressing one's viewpoint is an attack.
 * Please explain how you reconcile Essays with your nomination.
 * As a demonstration of good faith (per 's request), I have removed the Kafziel case example from the non-party actions section but will intend to replace with cited examples from other cases demonstrating when editors that were not parties to an Arbitration case significantly disrupted the proceedings of a case Hasteur (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see a a draft essay that may use a bit of exagerrated language. But I see nothing that qualifies as uncivil or an attactk.  -- Whpq (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note I play the role of "Scum and Villainy" in this essay and may shortly add Scum and Villain to my signature. I very much see this essay as a personal attack but I also have a thick skin.  If it is to be kept, it is nothing more than a monument to poor judgement.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would vote for this to be deleted I'm the second of the editors with an opposing view who join the scum and villainy brigade apparently.. While it's a personal attack of the passive-aggressive kind, I couldn't give two shits what Hasteur says about me. I have a thick skin and I couldn't care less what anyone thinks of me. I don't think much of him, so the feeling is likely mutual. However, if this is an essay that the writer has described as personal "vending" (sic) of his feelings, it ought to be deleted in the vein of wikipedia isn't a soapbox, a place for personal web pages or blog posts (which most personal rant essays resemble) and because after going through AfC, AN/I, and ArbCom, Hasteur seems deadest on continuing his rant-filled battles with a "vending" (sic) essay despite Wikipedia is not a battleground. Hey, maybe a dose of WP:CHOICE would be recommended, since bitching about ArbCom and users you disagree with is not improving the encyclopaedia.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recommend rename to "Arbitration: most wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy in the WikiVerse".  First, note typo-correction of incorrect spelling... and the original quote was "wretched" which is also much more exacting as an analogical description... but crucially, adding the WP:WikiSpeak-suffix makes it far clearer this essay-title is a narrative hook, for an essay which is ha-ha-only-serious.  *I* caught the Star Wars reference right off, before needing to click (and laughed :-)   ...but not everybody is a native speaker, and ESL might make this doubly-unclear.  Although effectively everybody in the wikiverse *has* seen the movie, methinks it will help to have a big picture right up top, of User:Ben_Kenobi slicing the arm off the not-very-WP:NICE-at-all  User:Walrus_Man, after the latter tried to pick a fight with User:Luke_Skywalker.  :-)     "You just watch yourself. We're wanted editors. I have community-bans on twelve wikis."  WP:-D definitely applies.  Plus methinks Hasteur makes some good points (speaking as wretched scum#3... arhbcohm drahmahz suck).  Precious little 'arbitration' seems to occur. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Essay by established user, content directly related to the project.  Even if exaggerated, censoring such things is very unproductive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Criticism of the arbitration process and its participants is permissible. In fact, sometimes I think there are only about four established editors who haven't criticized the ArbCom at some point or another ... and three of those are bots. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fourth would be a sleeper good guy sock. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.